Left coast. You'll find it's that way at Amazon, Apple (obviously), Facebook, and Google. Naturally Microsoft is the exception out of the Big 5. They in turn set the trends for startups.
Bro, do you even dictionary? It does have a defined meaning and it's not machine consciousness. For fucks sake, that's science fiction and only science fiction. It's not the common meaning of the term. It's not what "AI researchers" research. It's fanwank. Get over it.
1 : a branch of computer science dealing with the simulation of intelligent behavior in computers
2 : the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent human behavior
As you increase efficiency, people can buy more fore the same money, so it evens out. Looked at a different way, set the notion of money aside: what we consume is what we produce (assuming an efficient market, so we're not producing stuff no one wants). More production will always mean more consumption. More efficiency just means more production, because we as consumers are never satisfied.
Of course, times can get turbulent as jobs move to new areas faster than people can retrain, and this certainly isn't the first time that's happened.
Not as humans play it. You don't play the early game, or any area where pieces are sparse, by exhaustive analysis, but that's where the mechanical search space would be largest. (Much like humans don't play the endgame in chess that way.) "Complexity" of the naive search space, before even the most basic pruning, isn't an interesting measure.
Playing as humans play, the early game in chess is more complex than go, the midgame is similar, the endgame is much more complex in go. Go is harder to write a bot for, because chess is more complex in ways that are hard for humans, while go is more complex in ways that are hard to program. Does that make it a "more complex game"? Maybe - it's all down to definitions.
No, that just not what "AI" means, any more than "sentient" means self-aware. Science Fiction keeps abusing those terms, but they have mainstream meanings. AI is clever algorithms that imitate intelligent behavior. Which means it could still be wearing mirrored sunglasses.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
AI has always mean imitating intelligent behavior through clever algorithms. (Almost) no one researching AI is looking for machine consciousness - why would you want that? They're trying to solve real-world problems with engineering solutions. We want a self-driving car, not a self-aware car.
It's not that hard to get iron, and there's no shortage of it. The asteroid would never be worth the cost of moving it to somewhere useful. And nickel-iron isn't a particularly useful material in space, being very heavy.
I would fire the guy who made the registry to begin with. It was always a bad idea.
The registry as originally created was actually a great idea. Every program still used ini files for it's own settings, but you had the registry, very small at the time, as a sort of "global ini file" for things like file associations that needed to be centralized. A lightweight DB-style approach was safer for third parties to edit than a tree of text files - it actually limited the damage of an installer bug.
Then some asshole got the idea to move all program settings into the registry, and a ton of OS settings that could have stayed in ini files, and the downhill slide began. By the era of Win95 it had gone to a very bad place, and never really recovered.
Obviously, your family members don't do any real work.
You'll find that's common for kids and retirees.
Meanwhile, in the office, Apple laptops are the norm in the tech industry. Boggles my mind, since they don't even have docking stations, and the battery life is about half of what I get, but there it is. What I've been seeing for years is 90% Apple, 5% Windows, 5% Ubuntu.
Where I work, one of the "big 5" tech companies, about 5% do run Windows. That's a higher percent then you'll find at Google or (obviously) Apple. Windows is vanishing from tech companies. That's a good sign that in a generation it will be vanishing everywhere else.
Sure, inflation-adjusting historical prices can make sense, though a lot of bias can be snuck in by how you do the inflation-adjusting, so it's good to watch for that. It's also helpful to understand prices in terms like hours of work at the media wage.
Tell me more about how brown people can't solve their own problems, but they can only be solved from the outside. Do you have more details about your Final Solution to the India problem?
India is an emerging economy. Change takes time, but their economy is growing at twice the rate of the US economy, and unlike Chine their manufacturing base is for local consumers, not exports. They're certainly capable of becoming a modern industrialized nation, and have come a long way along that path in the past 20 years. They're certainly moving faster than we did in our industrial revolution.
Being a corporation may grant immunity to the owners, but it means nothing for the decision makers. You go to jail regardless. If prosecutors aren't seeking jail time for fraud, something odd is going on.
The only objective notion of value is: what it sells for. Every individual values things differently. A market discovers the balance between supply (of different amounts at different costs) and peoples various ideas of value (different for everyone).
The asteroid belt make no economic sense until there's already a thriving economy in space. Fortunately there are plenty of asteroids made of useful stuff very near Earth (not that I would consider nickel-iron "useful stuff" in this context).
An asteroid that you can make rocket fuel from, dragged into high Earth orbit, will be commercially viable once the cost of getting stuff into orbit drops enough.
You don't need to smelt it: smelting is a purification process. But this particular asteroid is worthless.
The first asteroid of commercial value will be a CHON asteroid very close to Earth . Moved into high orbit and used to make rocket fuel, it's a fundamental missing piece of a space economy. (Plus, the only way to ever get the fuel to move the first asteroid is if that asteroid is made of fuel). Naturally, automated robotics has a way to go first, but automated robotics seems very plausible these days.
The you want an aluminum asteroid, not a nickel-iron one. The first ship built mostly in space will be built mostly of aluminum (well, it will be mostly fuel like any rocket, but then the aluminum).
"Helicopter money" and "QE" are not some sort of opposite or choice. QE is the latest form of printing money. Want to give helicopter money out? It needs to come from somewhere - taxes, borrowing, or QE. Government spending was massive during the great recession, and QE helped pay for it.
The trade off is "helicopter money" vs "bank bailouts". Bush and Obama both chose bank bailouts. Almost 2 trillion worth. They could have given about $5000 to every American instead. Either way, though QE would have paid for it.
America's strength is that it allows the people to Democratically decide who will represent them, causing our society to sway towards the majority view.
Rule by the majority is a flaw in any system. It was never the point of America's republic-style democracy, saving only for the origination of spending bills. Instead, the point of democracy is to overthrow tyrants without bloodshed, and it works very well for that.
but once you start saying that "diversity of culture" is the reason an individual person living in Wyoming has a vote that is worth 3-4 times that of an individual in Ca
Individuals? The federal government represents the states.
"Hi I'm Cortana - I see you're trying to write a Word Doc and haven't typed for a few minutes - Would you like to buy a Red Bull - it gives you wings? YES, RIGHT NOW | SPECIFY DELIVERY TIME | CHOOSE A DIFFERENT DRINK"
While I agree, I get just as pissed at Google that I have to close a advertisement for Chrome any time I use gmail or youtube for the first time from a new browser. It would be one thing to use the normal ad space to hawk their own stuff, but no, they have to be more intrusive.
California folds under its own weight in less than a decade after doing so.
Nah. Year 1 Cali succeeds. Year 2 the US conquers Cali - it's not like they'll have a defense budget. Year 3 crippling punitive reparations are imposed on Cali. Won't take them anywhere near a decade to collapse.
America's strength is the diversity of cultures. Having the culture of any one area dominate the country is bad. The electoral college does a good job of balancing this - to the extent that state boundaries reflect cultural boundaries, which is reasonably close.
As far as comparing states - compare Cali and Washington. Similar culture, totally different tax scheme and implementation. Sure, Cali is bigger, but taxes and services are per-capita to begin with, so that doesn't seem to matter. You can have the government services you crave without Cali's amazing taxes and overbearing government intrusion into life (local as much as state).
If you can't get better than DSL in Seattle (and Netflix streams fine on DSL at moderate resolution), find a better place in Seattle. Heck, there's fiber in some areas (stops about 100 yards away from where I live - sigh).
Slashdot Mirror
Left coast. You'll find it's that way at Amazon, Apple (obviously), Facebook, and Google. Naturally Microsoft is the exception out of the Big 5. They in turn set the trends for startups.
Bro, do you even dictionary? It does have a defined meaning and it's not machine consciousness. For fucks sake, that's science fiction and only science fiction. It's not the common meaning of the term. It's not what "AI researchers" research. It's fanwank. Get over it.
1 : a branch of computer science dealing with the simulation of intelligent behavior in computers
2 : the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent human behavior
As you increase efficiency, people can buy more fore the same money, so it evens out. Looked at a different way, set the notion of money aside: what we consume is what we produce (assuming an efficient market, so we're not producing stuff no one wants). More production will always mean more consumption. More efficiency just means more production, because we as consumers are never satisfied.
Of course, times can get turbulent as jobs move to new areas faster than people can retrain, and this certainly isn't the first time that's happened.
Not as humans play it. You don't play the early game, or any area where pieces are sparse, by exhaustive analysis, but that's where the mechanical search space would be largest. (Much like humans don't play the endgame in chess that way.) "Complexity" of the naive search space, before even the most basic pruning, isn't an interesting measure.
Playing as humans play, the early game in chess is more complex than go, the midgame is similar, the endgame is much more complex in go. Go is harder to write a bot for, because chess is more complex in ways that are hard for humans, while go is more complex in ways that are hard to program. Does that make it a "more complex game"? Maybe - it's all down to definitions.
If it was real AI it would be self-aware.
No, that just not what "AI" means, any more than "sentient" means self-aware. Science Fiction keeps abusing those terms, but they have mainstream meanings. AI is clever algorithms that imitate intelligent behavior. Which means it could still be wearing mirrored sunglasses.
This is not true/strong AI,
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
AI has always mean imitating intelligent behavior through clever algorithms. (Almost) no one researching AI is looking for machine consciousness - why would you want that? They're trying to solve real-world problems with engineering solutions. We want a self-driving car, not a self-aware car.
It's not that hard to get iron, and there's no shortage of it. The asteroid would never be worth the cost of moving it to somewhere useful. And nickel-iron isn't a particularly useful material in space, being very heavy.
I would fire the guy who made the registry to begin with. It was always a bad idea.
The registry as originally created was actually a great idea. Every program still used ini files for it's own settings, but you had the registry, very small at the time, as a sort of "global ini file" for things like file associations that needed to be centralized. A lightweight DB-style approach was safer for third parties to edit than a tree of text files - it actually limited the damage of an installer bug.
Then some asshole got the idea to move all program settings into the registry, and a ton of OS settings that could have stayed in ini files, and the downhill slide began. By the era of Win95 it had gone to a very bad place, and never really recovered.
Obviously, your family members don't do any real work.
You'll find that's common for kids and retirees.
Meanwhile, in the office, Apple laptops are the norm in the tech industry. Boggles my mind, since they don't even have docking stations, and the battery life is about half of what I get, but there it is. What I've been seeing for years is 90% Apple, 5% Windows, 5% Ubuntu.
What percentage of PCs don't run Windows?
Where I work, one of the "big 5" tech companies, about 5% do run Windows. That's a higher percent then you'll find at Google or (obviously) Apple. Windows is vanishing from tech companies. That's a good sign that in a generation it will be vanishing everywhere else.
Sure, inflation-adjusting historical prices can make sense, though a lot of bias can be snuck in by how you do the inflation-adjusting, so it's good to watch for that. It's also helpful to understand prices in terms like hours of work at the media wage.
Tell me more about how brown people can't solve their own problems, but they can only be solved from the outside. Do you have more details about your Final Solution to the India problem?
India is an emerging economy. Change takes time, but their economy is growing at twice the rate of the US economy, and unlike Chine their manufacturing base is for local consumers, not exports. They're certainly capable of becoming a modern industrialized nation, and have come a long way along that path in the past 20 years. They're certainly moving faster than we did in our industrial revolution.
Being a corporation may grant immunity to the owners, but it means nothing for the decision makers. You go to jail regardless. If prosecutors aren't seeking jail time for fraud, something odd is going on.
The only objective notion of value is: what it sells for. Every individual values things differently. A market discovers the balance between supply (of different amounts at different costs) and peoples various ideas of value (different for everyone).
The asteroid belt make no economic sense until there's already a thriving economy in space. Fortunately there are plenty of asteroids made of useful stuff very near Earth (not that I would consider nickel-iron "useful stuff" in this context).
An asteroid that you can make rocket fuel from, dragged into high Earth orbit, will be commercially viable once the cost of getting stuff into orbit drops enough.
You don't need to smelt it: smelting is a purification process. But this particular asteroid is worthless.
The first asteroid of commercial value will be a CHON asteroid very close to Earth . Moved into high orbit and used to make rocket fuel, it's a fundamental missing piece of a space economy. (Plus, the only way to ever get the fuel to move the first asteroid is if that asteroid is made of fuel). Naturally, automated robotics has a way to go first, but automated robotics seems very plausible these days.
The you want an aluminum asteroid, not a nickel-iron one. The first ship built mostly in space will be built mostly of aluminum (well, it will be mostly fuel like any rocket, but then the aluminum).
"Helicopter money" and "QE" are not some sort of opposite or choice. QE is the latest form of printing money. Want to give helicopter money out? It needs to come from somewhere - taxes, borrowing, or QE. Government spending was massive during the great recession, and QE helped pay for it.
The trade off is "helicopter money" vs "bank bailouts". Bush and Obama both chose bank bailouts. Almost 2 trillion worth. They could have given about $5000 to every American instead. Either way, though QE would have paid for it.
Bankers are sad. Poor bankers.
America's strength is that it allows the people to Democratically decide who will represent them, causing our society to sway towards the majority view.
Rule by the majority is a flaw in any system. It was never the point of America's republic-style democracy, saving only for the origination of spending bills. Instead, the point of democracy is to overthrow tyrants without bloodshed, and it works very well for that.
but once you start saying that "diversity of culture" is the reason an individual person living in Wyoming has a vote that is worth 3-4 times that of an individual in Ca
Individuals? The federal government represents the states.
Fair point. Maybe CA should just be split into 2 states along those lines.
"Hi I'm Cortana - I see you're trying to write a Word Doc and haven't typed for a few minutes - Would you like to buy a Red Bull - it gives you wings? YES, RIGHT NOW | SPECIFY DELIVERY TIME | CHOOSE A DIFFERENT DRINK"
FTFY. Cortana is the new Bob.
Just yet another reason to uninstall Windows 10.
While I agree, I get just as pissed at Google that I have to close a advertisement for Chrome any time I use gmail or youtube for the first time from a new browser. It would be one thing to use the normal ad space to hawk their own stuff, but no, they have to be more intrusive.
California folds under its own weight in less than a decade after doing so.
Nah. Year 1 Cali succeeds. Year 2 the US conquers Cali - it's not like they'll have a defense budget. Year 3 crippling punitive reparations are imposed on Cali. Won't take them anywhere near a decade to collapse.
America's strength is the diversity of cultures. Having the culture of any one area dominate the country is bad. The electoral college does a good job of balancing this - to the extent that state boundaries reflect cultural boundaries, which is reasonably close.
As far as comparing states - compare Cali and Washington. Similar culture, totally different tax scheme and implementation. Sure, Cali is bigger, but taxes and services are per-capita to begin with, so that doesn't seem to matter. You can have the government services you crave without Cali's amazing taxes and overbearing government intrusion into life (local as much as state).
If you can't get better than DSL in Seattle (and Netflix streams fine on DSL at moderate resolution), find a better place in Seattle. Heck, there's fiber in some areas (stops about 100 yards away from where I live - sigh).